Julia Gillard: Inspirational or Diabolical?

When news hit my ears that Kevin Rudd had stepped down and handed over the reins to Gillard, I couldn’t stop smiling. Why? A few reasons, but the most obvious being that I was proud to see the day a woman holds power in Australia.

I have long thought that in a country as wonderful and laid back as Australia, it sad that we are still a very backwards in the way we define women’s and men’s roles. This is slowly changing, but in a country that still thinks you’re soft if you’re a man and cry (Grand Final loses are an exception) I was proud of Julia getting there; even if it was under slightly dubious terms.

So you can imagine my surprise when other women, who clearly weren’t wearing the same rose-coloured glasses as me, ones who weren’t high-fiving and going on about girl power, started attacking Gillard’s lifestyle: Julia Gillard is apparently a bad role model for women. Aside from the fact that she was sworn in as our 27th Prime Minster. Aside from the fact that she is our first female Prime Minister. Gasp at the fact that she doesn’t have (or even worse, doesn’t want) children. But none of that is really bad. According to Sydney Morning Herald columnist Bettina Arndt,( http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shacking-up-is-hard-to-do-why-gillard-may-be-leery-of-the-lodge-20100628-zexr.html) Gillard will lead young women astray and make bad decisions. The bad decision Gillard has made? Not being married.

Arndt’s article appeared on the SMH website on the 29th June. Arndt’s article opens with her questioning the real reason Gillard and partner Tim Mathieson haven’t moved into The Lodge yet. Arndt’s theory is that Gillard wants to test the waters of the Australian people and see how they react to Gillard and her “first man” moving in.
But Arndt’s stinging remarks are left for the core of her argument, which is that Gillard is in a position to ruin many young women’s lives. How you ask? Well despite Arndt admitting herself that between 1986 and 2006 the amount of de facto relationships has doubled, Arndt believes that women who follow Gillard’s lead will have miserable lives. Arndt declares that women in de facto relationships, and I quote: “(are) wasting precious breeding time in such uncertain relationships.”

Arndt goes on to say that these women will either end up with children who were used as a way to “fix” the relationship and no man, or end up bitter and childless because they were with Mr Wrong. But Bettina, who says you won’t end up bitter and childless with Mr Right? Why is Gillard a bad example for women because she has chosen a career over children and wishes to keep herself legally unattached? Who’s to say that either option has a guaranteed happy or sad ending?

Every relationship is different and the only people that know what really goes on in a relationship are the two people in that relationship. Not everyone is cut out to conform and I’m not opposed to either one. I am opposed to saying she’s a bad role model.

People acknowledge the fact that yes she is childless but it was her choice. We are in 2010 are we not? We are lucky to be able to choose who we date, marry, not marry, have kids, not have kids.

Let’s take a vote: is Julia Gillard a bad role model for women and is she attacking traditional values?

Does it bother you that she and Tim Mathieson aren’t married?

This girl is stepping off her soapbox and letting you jump on. So let’s hear it.